netdev - Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080111174822.GB17240@gate.ebshome.net>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:48:22 -0800
From:	Eugene Surovegin <ebs@...home.net>
To:	Stefan Roese <sr@...x.de>
Cc:	benh@...nel.crashing.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ibm_newemac: Increase number of default rx-/tx-buffers

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 01:38:17PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Saturday 05 January 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > Performance tests done by AMCC have shown that 256 buffer increase the
> > > performance of the Linux EMAC driver. So let's update the default
> > > values to match this setup.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <sr@...x.de>
> > > ---
> >
> > Do we have the numbers ? Did they also measure latency ?
> 
> I hoped this question would not come. ;) No, unfortunately I don't have any 
> numbers. Just the recommendation from AMCC to always use 256 buffers.

This cannot be true for all chips. Default numbers I selected weren't 
random. In particular, 256 for Tx doesn't make a lot of sense for 405. 
You just gonna waste memory.

I'd be quite reluctant to follow such advices from AMCC without actual 
details. 

-- 
Eugene

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html